Theistic exclusivism and the inadequacy of the medical analogy for religious choice

[wynn]

Theistic exclusivism and the inadequacy of the medical analogy for religious choice


Theists sometimes compare religious choice to choosing a medical treatment:

When a person is ill, they usually have at their disposal several medical procedures: they can go to a regular doctor who practices Western medicine; the can go for acupuncture, they can go to a shaman, a homeopath, they can go for numerous other treatments.

Similarly, the theists say, when a person has some idea that they should organize their spiritual search and thus join a religion, the theists suggest that one choose a religion, by a decision-making process similar to that of choosing a medical treatment (such as by listing and assessing the pros and cons of individual religions).
And that just like not taking any course of medical treatment will possibly make the disease worse, so not joining any religion will possibly make things worse - or at least one won't obtain the promised religious benefits.


There are several aspects in which this analogy fails, but one I wish to emphasize is this:

When choosing a medical treatment, one does so with the clear intention that if said treatment won't work, one will choose another one.
A medical treatment is not chosen with the intention "this or nothing, and if it kills me to stick with it."

Choosing a religion is characteristically the opposite:
When choosing a religion, one vows to stick with it no matter what.
It is an all-or-nothing, now-or-never matter.
One vows to believe that said religion is true above all others.
Every theistic religion has a tenet to the effect of "This religion is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."
This is clear already at the first visit to a theistic establishment.

It is clear to a seeker from the beginning on that in order to continue going to that religious establishment, they will have to view it as divine and infallible, as being the best there is or could possibly be.


Thisis how the medical analogy for religious choice does not apply, and is even misleading:

The medical analogy suggests that people may and should approach religious choice with the intention "and if this doesn't work out, then I can look elsewhere."

When joining a religion, one should cross one's fingers at initiation or baptism?

One should say "I believe [name of spiritual/religious organization] is divine and infallible, is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."
and nevertheless think "... and if this doesn't work out, I can still go elsewhere."
-?

Really?

 

[wynn]

For example:

LG -

You took initiation, you went through the formal process and took solemn vows like this man here:

Do you really expect us to believe that when you were prostrated there, your thoughts were something like
"Oh well, and if this doesn't work, I'll find something else."
"This is just one of the possible treatments."
"I shall now vow to believe this to be about the Absolute Truth, but I can change my mind anytime."

-?

 

[lightgigantic]

For example:

LG -

You took initiation, you went through the formal process and took solemn vows like this man here:

Do you really expect us to believe that when you were prostrated there, your thoughts were something like
"Oh well, and if this doesn't work, I'll find something else."
"This is just one of the possible treatments."
"I shall now vow to believe this to be about the Absolute Truth, but I can change my mind anytime."

-?

Do you really think a person makes their first spiritual decision at that moment (or that it is the last spiritual decision)?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Theistic exclusivism and the inadequacy of the medical analogy for religious choice


Theists sometimes compare religious choice to choosing a medical treatment:

When a person is ill, they usually have at their disposal several medical procedures: they can go to a regular doctor who practices Western medicine; the can go for acupuncture, they can go to a shaman, a homeopath, they can go for numerous other treatments.

Similarly, the theists say, when a person has some idea that they should organize their spiritual search and thus join a religion, the theists suggest that one choose a religion, by a decision-making process similar to that of choosing a medical treatment (such as by listing and assessing the pros and cons of individual religions).
And that just like not taking any course of medical treatment will possibly make the disease worse, so not joining any religion will possibly make things worse - or at least one won't obtain the promised religious benefits.


There are several aspects in which this analogy fails, but one I wish to emphasize is this:

When choosing a medical treatment, one does so with the clear intention that if said treatment won't work, one will choose another one.
A medical treatment is not chosen with the intention "this or nothing, and if it kills me to stick with it."

Choosing a religion is characteristically the opposite:
When choosing a religion, one vows to stick with it no matter what.
It is an all-or-nothing, now-or-never matter.
One vows to believe that said religion is true above all others.
Every theistic religion has a tenet to the effect of "This religion is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."
This is clear already at the first visit to a theistic establishment.

It is clear to a seeker from the beginning on that in order to continue going to that religious establishment, they will have to view it as divine and infallible, as being the best there is or could possibly be.


Thisis how the medical analogy for religious choice does not apply, and is even misleading:

The medical analogy suggests that people may and should approach religious choice with the intention "and if this doesn't work out, then I can look elsewhere."

When joining a religion, one should cross one's fingers at initiation or baptism?

One should say "I believe [name of spiritual/religious organization] is divine and infallible, is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."
and nevertheless think "... and if this doesn't work out, I can still go elsewhere."
-?

Really?

The analogy is simply about navigating a plethora of options.

You do a remarkable job of not addressing that.

 

[wynn]

Do you really think a person makes their first spiritual decision at that moment (or that it is the last spiritual decision)?

Open The BG As It Is at a random page, and it will likely instruct you to surrender to a spiritual master.

It is clear from the beginning on that the whole point of joining a religion is to take initiation (or get baptized or whichever the formal initiation procedure is).

It is clear from the beginning on that one has to believe that the religious organization one visits is divine and infallible.

If one goes to ISKCON meetings, one has to believe, at least from the second time one is there, that nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON.

If one goes to a Catholic church, one has to believe, at least from the second time one is there, that nobody gets to God except through the Catholic church.

And so on.

Religious exclusivism is clear from the beginning on.

Like I said earlier, I do not oppose exclusivism. My point is that it creates a problem that is unresolvable for humans; it would require omniscience to be resolved.

The analogy is simply about navigating a plethora of options.

You do a remarkable job of not addressing that.

You do a remarkable job of avoiding my point.

Either you're not particularly serious about your own religion;
or you are extremely sure of yourself and have always been, to the point that your own self-trust overrides any other concerns;
or you have many arguments about your religion that you have so far not presented.


To choose a religion based on the medical analogy, would be to claim one can arrive at sabda through anumana and pratyaksa!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal, I think you're completely out of order.
And you wonder why people call you a rascal.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Open The BG As It Is at a random page, and it will likely instruct you to surrender to a spiritual master.

opening the BG would probably be one of the first decisions then, yes?

It is clear from the beginning on that the whole point of joining a religion is to take initiation (or get baptized or whichever the formal initiation procedure is).

Actually its clear that a range of decisions have to made before surrender.

Not even arjuna gets to it till the 18the chapter

It is clear from the beginning on that one has to believe that the religious organization one visits is divine and infallible.

Actually its clear that from the beginning no one holds that view

If one goes to ISKCON meetings, one has to believe, at least from the second time one is there, that nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON.

If one goes to a Catholic church, one has to believe, at least from the second time one is there, that nobody gets to God except through the Catholic church.

And so on.

Usually its called being a kannistha

Religious exclusivism is clear from the beginning on.

Granted that there is a strong tendency to be a fanatic from teh start.

There's even a name for it : PD (Pure Devotee) Syndrome

Like I said earlier, I do not oppose exclusivism. My point is that it creates a problem that is unresolvable for humans; it would require omniscience to be resolved.

anartha nivrtti (or its equivalent by a different name) is something one simply has to mature through

You do a remarkable job of avoiding my point.

Either you're not particularly serious about your own religion;
or you are extremely sure of yourself and have always been, to the point that your own self-trust overrides any other concerns;
or you have many arguments about your religion that you have so far not presented.


To choose a religion based on the medical analogy, would be to claim one can arrive at sabda through anumana and pratyaksa!!

Even anumana and pratyaksa, rightly applied, can be elevating.

Thats why even the BG talks of a sliding scale of endeavours suitable for spiritual advancement, as opposed to this all or nothing nonsense which tends to be dear to the heart of fanatics

 

[wynn]

Signal, I think you're completely out of order.

What do you mean?
What is out of order?

 

[wynn]

opening the BG would probably be one of the first decisions then, yes?

It can also simply be a habit, or a neurotic compulsion.

Even anumana and pratyaksa, rightly applied, can be elevating.

Sure. But they are not able to discern what is sabda and what is not sabda.

It is misleading to claim they are able to do so.

 

[wynn]

Actually its clear that a range of decisions have to made before surrender.

One of those decisions being to consider a particular religion to be the one and only right one.

It is clear from the beginning on that one has to believe that the religious organization one visits is divine and infallible.

Actually its clear that from the beginning no one holds that view

There is no point in continuing to go there if one doesn't believe that.

Usually its called being a kannistha

You do realize that you have just called the majority of ISKCON devotees, including gurus, kanisthas?

See this discussion with plenty of references:
http://www.pariprashnena.com/index....son-be-krishna-conscious-outside-of-iskcon/p1

SDA himself says, quoting SP, that nobody can be KC outside of ISKCON.

Thats why even the BG talks of a sliding scale of endeavours suitable for spiritual advancement, as opposed to this all or nothing nonsense which tends to be dear to the heart of fanatics

ISKCON has an all-or-nothing, now-or-never mentality.

 

[lightgigantic]

One of those decisions being to consider a particular religion to be the one and only right one.

the simple fact is that a myriad of decisions have to be made to develop strong conviction.

That's why its commonly referred to as the nine fold process from sraddha to prema ... as opposed to the singular process of just deciding or whatever

There is no point in continuing to go there if one doesn't believe that.

if it was as your caricature suggests, you wouldn't see religious societies (as opposed to religious institutions or governing bodies ... although even these are more often than not similarly conflicted) being a melting pot of conflicting groups advocating what they deem as essential values

You do realize that you have just called the majority of ISKCON devotees, including gurus, kanisthas?

See this discussion with plenty of references:
http://www.pariprashnena.com/index....son-be-krishna-conscious-outside-of-iskcon/p1

SDA himself says, quoting SP, that nobody can be KC outside of ISKCON.

Its saying that one requires the association of devotees and that ISKCON offers that opportunity.

IOW solo effort in spiritual life = fail thing

ISKCON has an all-or-nothing, now-or-never mentality.

Its my observation (and I dare say experience) that persons suffering PDS either grow out of it or fail in spiritual life in 5 years, maximum.

 

[lightgigantic]

It can also simply be a habit, or a neurotic compulsion.




Sure. But they are not able to discern what is sabda and what is not sabda.

It is misleading to claim they are able to do so.

Its completely misleading to gloss over the host of arguments and constructs presented in the gita that eventually establish arjuna at the point of surrender.

IOW the BG is quite literally 18 chapters of argument completely at odds with your conclusions and attitudes about spiritual life

:shrug:

 

[Yazata]

Theistic exclusivism and the inadequacy of the medical analogy for religious choice


Theists sometimes compare religious choice to choosing a medical treatment

As you no doubt know, the Buddha used that analogy as well. It might not have been original with him either, and it might have already been something of a commonplace. So I don't think that it's a theist thing so much as it's simply traditional (and apparently very old).

When a person is ill, they usually have at their disposal several medical procedures: they can go to a regular doctor who practices Western medicine; the can go for acupuncture, they can go to a shaman, a homeopath, they can go for numerous other treatments.

Similarly, the theists say, when a person has some idea that they should organize their spiritual search and thus join a religion, the theists suggest that one choose a religion, by a decision-making process similar to that of choosing a medical treatment (such as by listing and assessing the pros and cons of individual religions).
And that just like not taking any course of medical treatment will possibly make the disease worse, so not joining any religion will possibly make things worse - or at least one won't obtain the promised religious benefits.

There are several aspects in which this analogy fails, but one I wish to emphasize is this:

When choosing a medical treatment, one does so with the clear intention that if said treatment won't work, one will choose another one.

A medical treatment is not chosen with the intention "this or nothing, and if it kills me to stick with it."

Choosing a religion is characteristically the opposite:
When choosing a religion, one vows to stick with it no matter what.

So perhaps one of the lessons of the analogy, if we take it seriously (and I very much do) is that we shouldn't be doing that. We shouldn't become so attached to and grasp so violently at our religious choices. Religion can obviously be, and very often is, the object of pathological desire.

It is an all-or-nothing, now-or-never matter.

It might be in some varieties of Christianity I guess, where faith is everything and as a result probably puffed up to very unhealthy proportions. But it certainly doesn't need to be.

One vows to believe that said religion is true above all others.

At least as a working hypothesis. If a physician prescribes a treatment, patients generally accept that the prescription is the best thing for their condition. But if over time it doesn't work, or if it only makes things worse, then that assumption might have to be revisited.

Every theistic religion has a tenet to the effect of "This religion is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."

This is clear already at the first visit to a theistic establishment.

We can accept those kind of claims provisionally, as working hypotheses. We don't need to accept them as absolute Truths that need no confirmation and are immune from all possible disconfirmation.

It is clear to a seeker from the beginning on that in order to continue going to that religious establishment, they will have to view it as divine and infallible, as being the best there is or could possibly be.

If a religious establishment demands that all of its participants must view it as divinely infallible, simply as an initial condition of participation, then that might be a pretty good reason for me to pass it by and keep looking.

I probably wouldn't dismiss the entire tradition that the establishment represents, because the demands might have been the work of a particular over-inflated clergyman or something. But I'd need to find another more relaxed example where the leaders weren't wound up so tight.

Thisis how the medical analogy for religious choice does not apply, and is even misleading:

The medical analogy suggests that people may and should approach religious choice with the intention "and if this doesn't work out, then I can look elsewhere."

We always have to keep our wits about us and we always have to listen to our hearts. Failure to do that, and instead putting ourselves into a childlike state of total credulity, grasping tightly onto the idea that some grand transcendent leap is required that will overturn all other earthly considerations, is what ultimately leads to 'heart-of-darkness' stuff like coolaid in the jungles of Jonestown and flying hijacked airplanes into office towers as supreme acts of faith.

When joining a religion, one should cross one's fingers at initiation or baptism?

If that initiation or baptism demands that we set aside our intelligence and our ethics, then it probably would be best not to accept it.

One should say "I believe [name of spiritual/religious organization] is divine and infallible, is the one and only right one, the best one; all others are less or more wrong."
and nevertheless think "... and if this doesn't work out, I can still go elsewhere."
-?

We can commence a path in the spirit that it is the best course for us personally, at that point in time. But we have to simultaneously keep open the option that if subsequent events prove otherwise, then it might be wise to act appropriately.

Really?

I think so.

 

[wynn]

As you no doubt know, the Buddha used that analogy as well. It might not have been original with him either, and it might have already been something of a commonplace. So I don't think that it's a theist thing so much as it's simply traditional (and apparently very old).

Sure. But the Buddha also gave many specifics, and Buddhism evolved them further:

1. The Dharma is likened to a raft; it is not conisdered an end-in-and-of-itself. One accepts the Dharma with the clear intention that one day, once one gets across the river of samsara, one will abandon it.
2. The Dharma is to be taught only to people who ask for instructions. This is why Buddhists normally don't preach unless invited.
3. The Dharma is good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the
end. There is no requirement that one would have to go through phases of irrational faith and leaps.
4. There is an emphasis on "when you know for yourself" (Kalama Sutta).

Theisms, are characteristically, not like that.

We can accept those kind of claims provisionally, as working hypotheses. We don't need to accept them as absolute Truths that need no confirmation and are immune from all possible disconfirmation.

In my world, the words "absolute" and "truth" mean something. I do not consider them to be words to be tossed about.

I cannot declare something to be the Absolute Truth, while in effect having my fingers crossed.

If a religious establishment demands that all of its participants must view it as divinely infallible, simply as an initial condition of participation, then that might be a pretty good reason for me to pass it by and keep looking.

If we accept that a religion (esp. a theism) is a closed self-referential system, then such a demand to view the establishment as divine and infallible is in place.

I don't see how a religion (esp. a theism) could be anything but a closed self-referential system.

I probably wouldn't dismiss the entire tradition that the establishment represents, because the demands might have been the work of a particular over-inflated clergyman or something. But I'd need to find another more relaxed example where the leaders weren't wound up so tight.

For this, you might have to switch whose translation and commentary of scripture you peruse.
Which can be an act of changing whole religions, not just changing groups within one religion.

We always have to keep our wits about us and we always have to listen to our hearts. Failure to do that, and instead putting ourselves into a childlike state of total credulity, grasping tightly onto the idea that some grand transcendent leap is required that will overturn all other earthly considerations, is what ultimately leads to 'heart-of-darkness' stuff like coolaid in the jungles of Jonestown and flying hijacked airplanes into office towers as supreme acts of faith.

Sure. But by relying on our wits and hearts so much, are we not placing our faith in our wits and hearts, instead of God?

If that initiation or baptism demands that we set aside our intelligence and our ethics, then it probably would be best not to accept it.

As far as I have come to know religions, they see no problem to demand that people set aside their intelligence and their ethics.

And again, if we accept that a religion (esp. a theism) is a closed self-referential system, then such a demand is in place.

 

[wynn]

Its completely misleading to gloss over the host of arguments and constructs presented in the gita that eventually establish arjuna at the point of surrender.

IOW the BG is quite literally 18 chapters of argument completely at odds with your conclusions and attitudes about spiritual life

What BG exactly?

The conversation between Krishna and Arjuna?
Or the commentaries by SP?

Krishna may have taken the time to tell Arjuna about this and that before expecting surrender.

SP does not, and generally, nor do devotees.

 

[wynn]

One of those decisions being to consider a particular religion to be the one and only right one.

the simple fact is that a myriad of decisions have to be made to develop strong conviction.

That's why its commonly referred to as the nine fold process from sraddha to prema ... as opposed to the singular process of just deciding or whatever

The moment one arrives at a religious establishment, one is expected to participate.

This means, among other things, to chant or sing along: which is an act to publicly declare this or that.

So, for example, one has to declare, right in the beginning:

I offer my respectful obeisances unto His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, who is very dear to Lord Kṛṣṇa, having taken shelter at His lotus feet.

I do not know A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. He is not even alive here anymore.
I am unwilling to "offer my respectful obeisances" to someone I do not know.
I do not know whether A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda deserves to be called "His Divine Grace."
I do not know whether he is very dear to Lord Krishna.
I do not know who Lord Krishna is.
I do not know whether A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda has taken shelter at His lotus feet.

Since I do not know any of that: Why would I go out and declare it?

If I just go with the chant and keep declaring, despite my concerns, then some day I will have certainty?
If I repeat something often enough, it will become true? This is the attitude I am supposed to have? Play a Goebbels on myself?

All I have to go by is hearsay from a group of people who strike me as hostile, resentful, angry. People I would not trust to take care of a dead plant, much less anything else.



Secondly, BG As It Is is not a book one could read to "weigh and consider."
It is a book of instructions, essentially written in the imperative (either the grammatical imperative or in forms with auxiliary verbs should, must, need to, ought to).

As such, it is the kind of book that cookbooks or computer manuals are.
Normally, one reads cookbooks and computer manuals when one has the intention to do as they say, and it would be useless to read them if one doesn't intend to do as they say (unless one, perhaps would read them for orthographic errors or some such).

if it was as your caricature suggests, you wouldn't see religious societies (as opposed to religious institutions or governing bodies ... although even these are more often than not similarly conflicted) being a melting pot of conflicting groups advocating what they deem as essential values

Be that as it may: I am not a member of those societies, so it is not my place to wonder what their essential values are.
They present themselves as societies; it is therefore reasonable for outsiders to expect that these societies will be relatively homogenous and united.

Its saying that one requires the association of devotees and that ISKCON offers that opportunity.

IOW solo effort in spiritual life = fail thing

This is how you read it.
Many others, including gurus, read it as "Nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON. All other religions and even other Vaisnava organizations are inferior to ISKCON."

Its my observation (and I dare say experience) that persons suffering PDS either grow out of it or fail in spiritual life in 5 years, maximum.

And I saw the statistics somewhere that the membership turnover rate for ISKCON is about 80% in 5 years.

 

[lightgigantic]

The moment one arrives at a religious establishment, one is expected to participate.

This means, among other things, to chant or sing along: which is an act to publicly declare this or that.

So, for example, one has to declare, right in the beginning:

and saying that translates as an act of what?
complete surrender?
The final last decision on the path of full conviction in spiritual values?
:bugeye:

I do not know A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. He is not even alive here anymore.
I am unwilling to "offer my respectful obeisances" to someone I do not know.
I do not know whether A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda deserves to be called "His Divine Grace."
I do not know whether he is very dear to Lord Krishna.
I do not know who Lord Krishna is.
I do not know whether A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda has taken shelter at His lotus feet.

Since I do not know any of that: Why would I go out and declare it?

If you have zero inquiry I guess you are exempt.

If I just go with the chant and keep declaring, despite my concerns, then some day I will have certainty?
If I repeat something often enough, it will become true? This is the attitude I am supposed to have? Play a Goebbels on myself?

Generally such issues are solved through the avenues of inquiry

All I have to go by is hearsay from a group of people who strike me as hostile, resentful, angry. People I would not trust to take care of a dead plant, much less anything else.

I tend to think its more of a self fulfilling prophecy for you.

Secondly, BG As It Is is not a book one could read to "weigh and consider."
It is a book of instructions, essentially written in the imperative (either the grammatical imperative or in forms with auxiliary verbs should, must, need to, ought to).

As such, it is the kind of book that cookbooks or computer manuals are.
Normally, one reads cookbooks and computer manuals when one has the intention to do as they say, and it would be useless to read them if one doesn't intend to do as they say (unless one, perhaps would read them for orthographic errors or some such).

Some parts are and some parts aren't
My point is that you have totally glossed over the parts that aren't in order to drive home your unfounded ideas about it being all or nothing

Be that as it may: I am not a member of those societies, so it is not my place to wonder what their essential values are.

doesn't matter

the point is that they wouldn't house the variety that they do if they were obedient to the narrow caricatures you present

They present themselves as societies; it is therefore reasonable for outsiders to expect that these societies will be relatively homogenous and united.

no societies are "all or nothing"
technically its not possible

This is how you read it.
Many others, including gurus, read it as "Nobody gets to Krishna except through ISKCON. All other religions and even other Vaisnava organizations are inferior to ISKCON."

My spiritual master often chuckles when he remembers how that was the dominant view in the 70's.

Needless to say, its not hard to find references that provide the proper context for the quotes you have provided

And I saw the statistics somewhere that the membership turnover rate for ISKCON is about 80% in 5 years.

I'm not surprised

 

[lightgigantic]

What BG exactly?

The conversation between Krishna and Arjuna?
Or the commentaries by SP?

Well both of them actually
:shrug:

I guess it would be more correct to say that there are 18 chapters with commentaries that are completely at odds with your ideas about spiritual life.

 

[wynn]

and saying that translates as an act of what?
complete surrender?
The final last decision on the path of full conviction in spiritual values?

To me, it does.

There are things that I will not say, unless I absolutely mean them.


I wasn't born yesterday.
I have witnessed many Mormon baptisms, I have heard people make big vows.
I participated in the Catholic church, while not being a member. I know what people say there, the claims and vows they make.
I have had plenty of oppostunities to think about big words.

Perhaps many years back, I would be willing to make big claims more lightly, but I don't anymore.

Generally such issues are solved through the avenues of inquiry

... for which that same religion claims I am not qualified for.

I tend to think its more of a self fulfilling prophecy for you.

I am pointing out a logical problem that arises, given the demands of the religious.

Some parts are and some parts aren't
My point is that you have totally glossed over the parts that aren't in order to drive home your unfounded ideas about it being all or nothing

I repeat:

One cannot arrive at sabda through anumana and pratyaksa.

That is so on principle.

no societies are "all or nothing"
technically its not possible

As a norm, societies present themselves as relatively homogenous and united, they claim they are so. It is what is required to be called a "society".

Whether they really are relatively homogenous and united, is another matter.
But they claim they are, and in order to fit in, one has to claim it too.

My spiritual master often chuckles when he remembers how that was the dominant view in the 70's.

Who is he?

Needless to say, its not hard to find references that provide the proper context for the quotes you have provided

Proper according to whom?

This is how "free spirits" like what you are suggesting are viewed as:
http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/HDG_SP_position.html


You can, of course, rub your freedom into my face. But it remains that you are initiated, you are over the hill.
You don't have to worry anymore about initation. You can "do your thing" and still feel good about yourself.

I can't - if I do, I risk never getting initiated at all.

 

[wynn]

I guess it would be more correct to say that there are 18 chapters with commentaries that are completely at odds with your ideas about spiritual life.

According to Sanjaya's account, Arjuna had good reason to be persuaded by Krishna's arguments (and His direct presence).

The run-of-the-mill person has no such reasons.